The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-10-28


such as 'the right of citizens to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches, and seizures
fourth amendment), and immunities deSig-
mated in the clause of the fifth amendment,
which provides that no person shall be COM
PEELED i'll any criminal case to be a witness
against himself" 1t had been maintained,
he said, that these first ten amend
mentS to the constitution were limita-
ton of Federal power only, but in
his opinion they had also the character of
bill of rights They showed what some of
the rights of citizens of the United States
were and these rights, privileges and i'm
munities were carried forward and con-
frrned by the fourteenth amendment 1t
was his belief that unless the privileges and
immunities set forth in the first ten amend
ments were specifically said in the terms to
be merely limitations of Federal power, they
were privileges and immunities which came
within the purview of the fourteenth amend
ment and were guaranteed by it.
Justice Field-Then you would bring all
questions to this court. l cannot conceive
of any question which cannot be brought
here if the Fourteenth amendment makes
the privileges and immunities, to which it
refers, include all those of the first ten
amendments.
Mr.. Tucker said he would admit that
it was a new question, but
that he should like to argue it,
Turning to the action and rulings of the
trial court, Mr.. Tucker said that the de-
fense were driven to peremptory chal-
lenges in order to exclude jurors who should
have been rejected for cause, and that
thereby there was no limitation of the right
of peremptory challenge which this court
has held to be one Of the highest privileges
of the prisoners.
'The last four Jurors" said Mr.. Tucker,
"were put upon us after our peremptory
challenges had been exhausted. In one case
we objected distinctly upon the ground that
the ruling of the court was in violation of
the Constitution"
In conclusion Mr.. Tucker said: 1--WE had
the right, in my Judgment, to the writ to be
heard on the question whether the constitu-
ton has been violated in order to compass
the conviction of these men. 1t is true they
are said to be Anarchists. If the court asks
me whether l have any sympathy with
them, I have only to say that the court
knows me too well to suppose that
have any sympathy with these unhappy
and misguided men, but they are men, and
they are entitled to the same protection
that am. The same constitution is over
us all. / ask the court to interpose its
shield and protect these men, because | may
need it myself. | know no anarchy abroad
fear except anarchy in the administration
Of justice. fear that when anarchy dons
the ernine of justice and administers
lynch law, in violation of the supreme
law of the land. Whether the prisoners,
point can be sustained, is question you can
only decide after an examination of the rec
ord and hearing. Strike after you hear,
but don't strike before you hear. lpray that
the court will therefore award this writ, for
sc do la fhora ~
whole record which will demand reversal
of judgment"
ATTORNEY GENERAL HUNTS ARGUMENT
Mr.. Tucker finished speaking at 2:35
o'clock, ami was followed by Attorney
General Hunt in behalf of the State of
Illinois. who spoke till the court adjourned.
Mr.. Hunt said that to warrant the is
suance of the writ it must appear from the
record: First, that there is a Federal queS-
tion involved, and second, that such ques-
tion was raised and decided in the State
court He was not as well informed as he
would like to be with regard to the exact
points upon which the counsel for the petit
TONERS relied. In the first part of his argu-
ment, Mr.. Tucker planted himself squarely
upon rights which belonged to his clients
under the fourteenth amendment, but in the
latter part he changed ground slightly and
insisted that the first ten amendments were
declarations of individual rights, and then
that they were all comprised in the pro
visions of the fourteenth amendment The
Attorney General opposed this view and in
sisted that the provisions contained in the
first ten amendments to the constitution are
limitations on the powers of the Federal
government, and not upon the State.
So far as the petitioners rely
upon anything contained in these
amendments, they can have no standing in
this court. The fourteenth amendment is
equally foreign to any right, privilege or
immunity here.claimed by the petitioners
The fourteenth amennment declares: mo
State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunjties of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process OF law,
nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. "
The record will show that the complaint is
not that the State has made or is enforcing
law which deprives the petitioner of any
of the privileges or immunities guaranteed
by that section, but that they are deprived
Of rights by an erroneous construction of
the law, placed upon it by trial
court of the State. The petition
ers did not claim in the Supreme
Court of the State that the Illinois act of
1874 was repugnant to the constitution,
treaties, or laws of the United States, nor
that the authority of the court was exer-
cised under it, but that the act was consti-
tutional and valid and that the court exer-
cised its power in violation of that law. The
petitioners were tried in the courts Of the
State, under the laws Of the State, and that
constitutes due process of law. 1t is not
material that this or another court might
have ruled differently under the law
THE PREssER PRECEDENT.
Due process of law means 1.-The law of the
land.n In the case of Presser vs. the State
of Illinois, in November. 1885, the Federal
question raised was as to the right to bear
arms, and it was contended that the Hi
nois statute was limitation of his rights as
a citizen of the United States under the
Fourteenth amendment. This Court
held that the right to bear
arms was not right guaranteed
by the constitution of the United States
that the Federal government was only pre-
vented by the second amendment from in
fringing that right; that dealing with such
right was a matter for State discretion, and
that as police measure State could treat
it as it chose 1t was held furthermore that
bearing arms was not privilege or ''im-
munity" of citizenship Of the United States,
as contemplated by the fourtheenth amend
ment. The decision forecloses and bars out
the contention of the counsel that the rights
contemplated in the language of the first
ten amendments, were all included in the
fourteenth amendment, and extended es-
necial guarantees and immunitieS to citi-